No argument on the RAV V6 power or towing capabilities. But if we are talking fun to drive/handling + interior style the Rogue does very well. And I bet if you drive the RAV V6 hard like a rocket you don't get 25+ mpg. They are both tops in their class, imo.
Lift gate is a better solution than swinging gate. Maybe you are shorter than I am; I have hit my head on too many liftgates to agree with you. And you'll never have to replace a flaccid strut on a swing gate.
It would be nice if they could do both, sort of like the old station wagon gates that could either swing open or drop down like a tailgate depending on which handle you operated.
After testdriving the 2008 RAV4 V6, not once, not twice, but 4 times, I still bought a Rogue. And I enjoy hp. But the RAV had only that going for it, IMHO. Sure, it leaps out ahead of the pack when you barely touch the accelerator, and that can be useful in 2-lane road passing situations. But the Rogue, IT is so smooooooth. Having driven manual transmissions for many years, but wanting to move to an automatic, I much prefer that CVT smoothness. Yep, the RAV has more cargo space, but that wasn't top priority for me. The Rogue has enough. And there's no tire hanging off the back. And the better price for the trimmed out car was important to me. I have shopped Toyotas before and walked away for that same reason -- the higher price for a sparer interior. The Rogue is just an all round comfortable car -- better comfort in the seats, smoother ride, nicer handling, and I love the Bluetooth. I kept testdriving the RAV cuz I thought I should like it better, but in the end, not needing to tow a boat, but wanting some of the cabin comforts, I went for the Rogue.
Your right on on the $$$'s roguer08. I too almost bought a Rav4 but, just couldn't cut a deal w/Toyota dealer that I bought 2 new cars from in the past. So off I went looking at the other 2 [Nissan and Honda].....I never made it to the Honda dealer once I saw the Rogue and all you get for the almighty $. The Rav is nice but, couldn't get a Limited w/dark interior. The Sport is the only pkg that offered black interior and we wanted leather and all the other goodies, didn't care for the swinging rear door or the tire hanging off the back of it either. The CVT is great, no automatic compares to it.[unless there is a 75 or 100 speed automatic out there that I'm not aware of]
Best of luck with your Rogues, seriously...but the CVT is precisely why I wouldn't consider one...I'm not interested in being a guinea pig for the long-term durability of CVT transmissions.
Maybe it will be the most reliable transmission ever, but I don't know that and neither do you...we don't know what problems might turn up long term, I'm talking like 8-10 years down the line. It is simply an unknown. Hopefully it turns out good for you.
Hard to tell. Even with automatic transmission is unpredictable to tell long term reliability. I have a 2002 honda oddy. and so far no tranny problems. Lots of people have had theirs replaced in some cases more than once. On the other hand, my 95 Geo Prizm(Toyota corolla) is reaching the 200k mark and the original tranny is silky smooth. Technically CVT is not supposed to suffer from gears wear like automatic wich makes it more appealing for people with lots of stop and go.
As did my 2007 Toyota Rav4 I bought April 2007. 3 transmissions in 6 months. After a Lemon Law buyback, I bought a Rogue. I've been a happy Nissan Rogue owner ever since.
i've now had my rogue for almost 6000 miles in the past 2 months, and still am loving it. CVT seems fine so far; i've had unpredictable problems with Dodge Caravan trannies - my 1996 had to be replaced at 190,000, 210,000, and 250,000 - and still going strong now at 300,000. my 2001 grand caravan tranny lasted until 160,000 until i totaled it on a deer and replaced it with the rogue. i have no regrets getting the rogue so far, even when i hear about the RAV4 and CR-V.
you guys do realize the cvt has been used in the murano for over 6 years now dont' you? the long term reliability on the cvt is not an unknown, and they actually do better, long term reliablilty. wise, than nissans auto trannies. Having proven their reliability in the larger, more HP, more torque V-6 murano is a lot of the reason nissan started putting them in everything.
nissans cvt are anything but new or untested. Nissan has invested HUGE amounts of money in cvt, and would not have switched over to a faulty trans.
It will be interesting to see how the Rogue, rav4, rx7 and crv are going to stuck up against the new toyota VENZA coming up this fall, For what I have read it is bigger, sportier, good looking and est. price btw. $23 and $32k. The only thing they haven't show yet is fuel economy, but if is in the upper 20s it will be hard to beat.
"Nissan has invested HUGE amounts of money in cvt, and would not have switched over to a faulty trans." That doesn't mean much...manufacturers have invested HUGE amounts of money in many things that have turned out to be mistakes in the long run...
Time will tell...maybe my next vehicle will have a CVT.
yes it does. it means nissan has spent the money to improve on each version, and thoroughly tested it. in other words, they didn't just design something on paper then start throwing it in cars.
Time will tell
time has already told. they've been used for long enough for any serious design or engineering flaws to have shown up. They are more reliable than the automatic transmissions nissan used/uses. it's not even debateble anymore. the technology is neither new nor unproven.
I don't know!. They can't price it too high if they want to sell. Anything over 35k will put it into fully loaded Highlander or Murano territory. That's why I think is going to be interesting to see how aggressive toyota is willing to get.
I was converted to the church of the cvt with the Ford Freestyle. Granted you couldnt take immediately off like a rocket on steroids with it, but you could certainly raise eyebrows having a 4000+lb vehicle suddenly go from 10mph to30 or 40+... It certainly had a nice growl to it accelerating, but all in all, it was heavy for its engine.
See, reason I went for a cvt vehicle is 90 tempo tranny froze in first gear and such... I like the idea behind the cvt. one might need to get used to the lack of "proper" gears, but just imagine the nightmare that is the semi-truck automatic transmission. Far too much could go wrong there at any time.. Like regular geared autos. After all, suddenly finding yourself restricted to one gear pulling away from a stoplight is rather irritating.
Currently, I have a Forester, and at times I tend to force that into a psuedo-cvt-ness, not that it works that well. Time and again, I'm reminded by the acceleration lag of the Forester that it simply is not a cvt.
I do wonder however, at the lack of comparisons between Forester and the Rogue, after all, they do seem to be in similar classes.
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
i've had my 2008 rogue, AWD, SL, since 12/20 and have already put almost 16,000 on it. i've had no problems with the CVT and it gives me excellent acceleration for a 4 banger. it took me a while to get used to the sound of the engine accelerating (sounded like my clutch slipping), but i also use the paddle shifters or manual shifter (although the "gear ratios" are hypothetical) and enjoy the feel of having control of downshifting and upshifting (i've always preferred manuals over autos). the ride is smooth for a short wheelbase, BOSE stereo with bluetooth is great. not as much room behind the passengers in the cargo area (of course, i was spoiled with my grand caravan), but sufficient enough for me, as my kids are now off to college, so my wife and i don't taxi around children like we used to. i'm almost 6' and have no problem with head room, even with the moonroof, which i love.
Nissan has been making CVT's for over 20 years and has commercially offered one since 1992 (in Japan) and 2003 in North America. Nissan believes in it's CVT so much that as of 2008MY all Altima, Sentra, Murano and Rogue models only have CVT as it's variant from a manual transmission. In fact, a Versa with a CVT has BETTER fuel economy than it's manual tranny alter-ego. Don't belive me? Go check out Nissan's Canadian Website.
If you need more time than 20 years, so you don't feel like a "guinea pig", then you should probably note that the concept for the design is more than 500 years old . Where as the concept of a conventional automatic transmission with gears has only been around for about 100 years.
As is true with all new concepts and technology, there will inevitably be nay-sayers. Eventually everyone comes around and starts thinking similarily though. Which is probably why both Honda and Toyota are scrambling to release north american versions of their own CVT transmissions.
Oh, and some reasons to go for a CVT (in any manufacturer):
1. Fuel efficient
2. Great power from the engine straight to wheels without a gearbox dictating gears (1st gear MUST come before 2nd, which MUST come before 3rd, etc...)
3. Great track record (Nissan has one of the lowest warranty-cost indexes with regards to drivetrain of any major automobile manufacturer)
4. And finally, although some people may not believe it, great towing funtionality in a 4 cylinder (when using the paddle shifters or "manual" shift mode to put the transmission into a synthesized 1st gear).
the whole CVT thing started 50 years ago in a Dutch (?) car called a DAF, and historically was limited to lower HP/load econobox applications. It had been problematic in higher torque applications especially in low air temperatures. Nissan effectively solved this in the Murano and now obviously uses the transmission line wide with a great deal of success. I drive a new Rogue. It is a bit non traditional in the way it drives - there is no usual 'jolting' downshift when you hit the accelerator coming out of a corner for example - but it is certainly smooth and quiet even with the 4 banger. Haven't been able to figure out yet why anybody would even want to use the paddle shifters. One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is that the CVT is mechanically simplier than these new 5 and 6 speed 'traditional' autos and therefore shouldn't cost 4 grand to get them fixed in the unlikely event they do
Lift gate is a better solution than swinging gate.
In our case it actually wasn't. We could open the hatch of our 2002 CR-V (Swinging Tailgate) in our garage, but couldn't open the liftgate of our 2000 Odyssey minivan; the van's hatch would hit the bottom portion of the raised garage door.
Unfortunately there have been many Murano owners who have major problems with their CVTs. They do cost as much, if not more so to fix or replace than a conventional automatic. Check the Murano forums.
Unfortunately there have been many Murano owners who have major problems with their CVTs Of course there have
forums like this are bad places to be making any assumptions about any car's problems or reliabilities simply because folks that have a problem with anything are going to all over these forums looking for help or maybe just to vent. Nissan has produced and sold hundreds of thousands of CVTs and at least tens of thousands of Muranos so equipped for years now. Of course there will be a few folks out there that have had problems with it and I could certainly find a lot of those folks complaining quite loudly (and often) on a Murano forum entitled 'transmission issues'. A better source of info. on the 'success' of the CVT might be consumer statistical compilations (CR for example) and/or any records of CVT related recalls and/or TSBs. Or if Nissan were abandoning the CVT (because of warranty costs). On this basis (and others) I think you'll find that the Nissan CVT has been a remarkable success, been quite trouble free, and also something that Nissan is expanding to more and more of their vehicles including now the Rogue which essentially uses the Altima's engine/tranny - a car they sell a mere 300,000 of during the year.
BTW, I think I said that the CVT shouldbe cheaper to repair (because of its mechanical simplicity). If it isn't - I wonder if that is really a function of the 3rd party independents not being 'able' (or trained) to do it yet or that these newer 5 -6 speed + conventional trannies are dictating that the era of the $1500.00 tranny rebuild is over. Many dealers will generally farm out their tranny work to independents - if Nissan dealers are having to do it themselves (or there are few qualified to do it) it would not surprise me that it could get quite expensive. Obviously the 'jury' must still be consideredto be out on the CVT, after all it has really only been around since 2003 in the Murano- but any implications that the tranny has been anything but a success I think is incorrect.
Your spot on cap. the cvt is cheaper to repair. the problem is, nissan doens't want to repair them. they prefer to take them out and replace for new. the biggest reason as far as I've seen, is because they want to tear them apart and find out what went wrong. anyway, some transmission shops will fix them, and rebuild kits are available. your absolutely right in that judging the cvt based on forum threads titled "transmission problems" is a pretty poor indicator.
I don't feel like doing the search, but for anybody interested, nissan has said several times that their xtronic CVT is MORE RELIABLE than the auto trannies they used to use. even though some people have had problems with their cvt, not as many have had problems as had problems with nissans auto transmissions.
nissan has said several times that their xtronic CVT is MORE RELIABLE than the auto trannies they used to use and given that they now use the CVT in most of their vehicles - you would expect them to say something different? I think though that - within this thread - the 'traditional' electronic 5 speed in the RAV4 V6 vs. the CVT in the Rogue, I think you'll find more complainers on the Toyota websites despite that V6 being about the best engine on the planet.
well, it's not just nissan saying the cvt is more reliable than the autos'. Its bassed on warranty work. the cvt's have less claims per however many vehicles than their automatics do/did. I don't think thats the case with the MT's though.
a corollary of Murphy's Law - the more complicated anything is - the more likely it is to break - in this case high to low degree of complication = multi speed conventional AT, the CVT, the MT. As you say, likely the same order of reliability expectations - in reverse order. There are so many folks on the road today that have no experience/training with MTs. Since the CVT and MT both offer similar fuel efficiencies, it will be interesting to see if it's the CVT or the MT that picks up in popularity as gas surges to $5.
I have a tear drop trailer that weighs 1500 lbs I want to tow with my Rogue. The towing capacity is 1500, but that's unladen, so I thought I'd use a weight distributing hitch to compensate for any excess. Does anyone have experience towing with the Rogue?
I like the CR-V, but I have to say I love the Rogue, has better performance and also fuel economy, the Rogue's all wheel drive system reacts faster than the CR-V and has a 4wd lock button which the CR-V doesn't have.
For the CRV, mainly the performance is the key issue.
I think Honda should put the new 2008 Accord top 4-Cyl engine in it.
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy, also adding a lockable 4wd button and a faster wheel slippage reaction time for the all wheel drive to engage the rear wheels
I think Honda should put the new 2008 Accord top 4-Cyl engine in it.
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy
Increased performance wouldn't be noticed much, especially at normal operating RPMs (under 4,000). Torque is pretty much unchanged, and the peak horsepower in the 190hp version doesn't come until around 7,000 RPM.
Increased fuel economy is unlikely as well; it went unchanged from the 166hp to the 190hp Accord.
If anything I do think the 2010 CR-V will offer something like th 177hp version that is in the LX Accord, with its lower redline and power peaks.
just came back from a 2100 mile round-trip from VA to FL with 4 adults, 5 suitcases and 2 duffle bags ( we were driving down to Port Canaveral for a 5 day cruise - definitely the way to go, given airlines are now penalizing you for carrying more than one suitcase!!!). used a samsonite soft-top on the roof-rack. a little tight, but comfortable enough for th 13+ hour drive down and 15+ hour drive back (coming back, took two days) absolutely no problems with acceleration loaded down - for a 4 cyl. - and loaded down, averaged about 22 mpg (with poor wind resistance because of the soft top). in 100 degree+ weather in FL, A/C worked great and didn't seem to tax the engine at all; lots of positive comments from people thinking it was a Murano (i tell them it's the Murano's younger brother, that takes REGULAR gas, not PREMIUM!, and better mileage). absolutely NO mechanical problems at all during the whole trip.
Pluses: very good mileage; very good performance for a 4 cylinder loaded down (remember, this is NOT a Honda Accord V6 with 6Manual!), CVT worked wonderfully - with not a hitch and smooth acceleration, fair comfort for 4 adults (of course, previously we were spoiled with a Grand Caravan Sport, so not fair to compare), XM radio and bluetooth were great. Minuses: a little cramped, and difficult to pack (what do you expect for the size), bottomed out a couple of times (we were probably maxed out on the GVWR), but no damage other than a scraped bottom of trailer hitch, wished the back seat would recline, wished for extra power plug in the back,
rogue now has over 22,000 miles since 12/07, and no problems. took it to oil change after trip and all they recommneded was replacing the air filter (which looked fine to me, so i told them i'd replace it later)
Great report, glad to read it. I like the Rogue, and really like the idea of a CVT. My parents are currently looking at another Nissan with the CVT, so I'm glad to hear all the good reports.
As far as the air filter goes, if you can get to it easily, replace it yourself and save the big bucks. My dealer charges $30 for it to be put in, so I bought a $9 one made by STP and put it in my Honda myself. A penny saved is a penny earned, but 2,000 pennies is lunch for two!
the CRV sure seemed quicker than my Rogue when I road tested them. Must be that 'slipping clutch' feeling that comes with the CVT, because the Rogue really does pick up speed rather well (and much more quickly than the CRV) and so smoothly that you don't know how fast you're going until you are well past how fast you wanted to go! After driving the CVT for awhile now, experiencing both the power and the FE, it is amazing that the other mfgrs. don't use it more - Nissan has no monopoly on innovation as far as I know. As far as the lockable AWD - well yes it is and no it isn't - simply because it turns itself off (reverting back to FWD only) at speed. I could see it being valuable in the snow country though along with the switchable Stability Control.
Having had a RAV 4 V/6 Sport and now a Rogue SL AWD (with Premium pkg):
1) Rogue rides much better, not as "busy" as the RAV. Handles tighter. Wind noise seems much less at 65-70 MPH in Rogue. Road noise also. Rogue much better in crosswinds.
2) RAV accelerates faster, both from standing start and highway pass, but Rogue isn't at all lazy.
3) MPG on Rogue is better. 33 avg on first three tanks in Rogue vs 27 in 30k miles in RAV.
4) Rogue seats more comfortable, more supportive on sides and lumbar areas
5) RAV interior is more practical: less cloth, more plastic, especialy on doors; many more storage cubbies; more cupholders; Huge storage well in rear where 3rd seat would go. Rogue hasa smaller one back there with its touted dividers, which don't seem all that useful, especially if you use a load blanket.
6) AT gearbox in RAV is constantly hunting, thus annoying. Not so in Rogue. Plus the paddles up the fun factor nicely. The Rogue actually has seven forward speeds so, once it's broken in, one should be able to work the power band better in the Rogue. The Rogue gearbox feels tighter, less slushy. But it would be nice if the Paddles were in a fixed location when steering large lock. However, one can still gear up/down with the console lever. One neat trick on the CVT is that you can remain in full Auto mode and trigger the manual briefly by just pulling a paddle, after a bit it will return to "D" (auto) by itself. No need to change modes. Found that to be very handy at times.
7) Rear visibility has glitches in both, although at different spots. Side visibility from Rogue is better. The non-removeable rear headrests are a serious flaw in the Rogue, IMO. Doesn't bother us since we have rear seats down 99% of the time. But when they're up rear visibility is seriously compromised. If that wasn't the case the rear visibility could be a deal-breaker for us.
8) The way the CVT holds speed downhill is useful. HAve yet to try it in crawl mode to compare with RAV's hill brake.
9) Service people seem more friendly with Nissan around these parts.
10) Ground clearance slightly better in Rogue.
11) Audio system in Rogue sounds better.
12) Can tow a bit more with RAV.
13) Mirror adjustment control location is more user friendly on Rogue, but the VSC and AWD controls are better located on the RAV.
14) The OEM tires on Rogue (Conti 4x4 Contact) are not as good as RAV (loud, only 6/32 tread on the Rogue's Contis at 19 miles!).
15) The conventional (vertical) hatch on the Rogue is more convenient. Sounds like that's going to change next model year.
16) RAV comes stock with full-size spare. Rogue has temp. However, you can change that by removing the aft storage locker and replacing the donut. But that does give up that small partitioned storage bin mentioned above.
17) Am not sure yet if the Intelligent Key is a boon or not. However, the price to replace one seems less expensive than the RAV or even a Honda FIT.
18) No locking fuel door. However, the RAV's flimsy door won't stop anyone.
Both are good, small utilitarian rides, but we feel the Rogue offers better value for the price which around here is substantially less than RAV.
We realize much of the above is subjective, but that's our $0.02. HTH.
Comparing the CVT in the Freestyle vs Rogue would be misleading, IMO. We found that the Ford has little downhill breaking, sluggish start off the line, no decent manual mode, and much noiser. Our 08 Rogue is much more friendly, quieter (yes it's a smaller engine), more flexible, much more fun (with the paddles and seven speeds).
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
No problem here, but we're only 5'10". I compared both with and w/o sunroofs during test drives and didn't notice any blatant difference.
Great report I also traded a 4cyl RAV for my Rogue and have no regrets. Your report is very accurate, although I feel like my Rogue is quicker than the RAV.
Thanks to the CVT I guess, our Rogues are faster than either the RAV or the CRV, 4 cylinder to 4 cylinder. It is the V6 RAV that will leave anything else in this class in the dust (at only a small FE penalty) but which can push that price over $30k
The RAV4 V6 is available on all 3 trim levels...I got my base RAV4 AWD V6 with a few options for under $25K. But yes, the loaded Limiteds can push $30K...
As for FE penalty, I got 28 mpg last weekend on a 400+ mile trip.
already own (for 75k) your drivetrain in an 05 Avalon, it is very impressive in that 3600lb. car as well, giving me close to 27mpg overall, while still allowing a car that is faster than any V6 powered sedan in its class. Remarkable engine and certainly one of the (if not the) best V6s available. Believe it or not, I have found my Avalon's FE marginally better than my loaded SL AWD Rogue primarily because I do a higher portion of my driving on the highway where the Av does better. The Rogue will best it ever so slightly around town and does pay a bit of a price for all the AWD hardware (as would the RAV AWD models) Shopped the RAV and was not impressed with the 4 cylinder at all and also that the V6 was going to cost me about 5 grand more - optioned out as my Rogue is. The Rogue is surprisingly quick even if it doesn't quite keep up with the RAV V6 although the CVT has required some adjustment on my part. However, for this type of vehicle, I thought the Rogue more fun to drive than the RAV with more flexibility in the interior (passenger seat folds and all seats flat for a really long/flat cargo area) and overall a nicer interior (mine is perforated leather). Besides the CRV, also considered the CX7 which was going to be even less expensive than the Rogue but the turbo 4 was rough and I was scared away by CR reliability reports. Power, fit and finish, and fun to drive quotient quite good though. It will be interesting to see how well the RAV V6 continues to sell, many folks will buy a 4 banger just because they think it must be much more economical, something not necessarily the case when you talking about the Toyota 2GR.
Comments
Oh, of that I have no doubt...but it's fun to have when you want it.
I have nothing against Nissans, years ago I had an 1988 Pathfinder that was a wonderfully reliable vehicle.
Maybe you are shorter than I am; I have hit my head on too many liftgates to agree with you. And you'll never have to replace a flaccid strut on a swing gate.
It would be nice if they could do both, sort of like the old station wagon gates that could either swing open or drop down like a tailgate depending on which handle you operated.
Mike
i have no regrets getting the rogue so far, even when i hear about the RAV4 and CR-V.
nissans cvt are anything but new or untested. Nissan has invested HUGE amounts of money in cvt, and would not have switched over to a faulty trans.
That doesn't mean much...manufacturers have invested HUGE amounts of money in many things that have turned out to be mistakes in the long run...
Time will tell...maybe my next vehicle will have a CVT.
yes it does. it means nissan has spent the money to improve on each version, and thoroughly tested it. in other words, they didn't just design something on paper then start throwing it in cars.
Time will tell
time has already told. they've been used for long enough for any serious design or engineering flaws to have shown up. They are more reliable than the automatic transmissions nissan used/uses. it's not even debateble anymore. the technology is neither new nor unproven.
It is a Toyota, after all!
Why?
I was converted to the church of the cvt with the Ford Freestyle. Granted you couldnt take immediately off like a rocket on steroids with it, but you could certainly raise eyebrows having a 4000+lb vehicle suddenly go from 10mph to30 or 40+... It certainly had a nice growl to it accelerating, but all in all, it was heavy for its engine.
See, reason I went for a cvt vehicle is 90 tempo tranny froze in first gear and such... I like the idea behind the cvt. one might need to get used to the lack of "proper" gears, but just imagine the nightmare that is the semi-truck automatic transmission. Far too much could go wrong there at any time.. Like regular geared autos. After all, suddenly finding yourself restricted to one gear pulling away from a stoplight is rather irritating.
Currently, I have a Forester, and at times I tend to force that into a psuedo-cvt-ness, not that it works that well. Time and again, I'm reminded by the acceleration lag of the Forester that it simply is not a cvt.
I do wonder however, at the lack of comparisons between Forester and the Rogue, after all, they do seem to be in similar classes.
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
If you need more time than 20 years, so you don't feel like a "guinea pig", then you should probably note that the concept for the design is more than 500 years old . Where as the concept of a conventional automatic transmission with gears has only been around for about 100 years.
As is true with all new concepts and technology, there will inevitably be nay-sayers. Eventually everyone comes around and starts thinking similarily though. Which is probably why both Honda and Toyota are scrambling to release north american versions of their own CVT transmissions.
Oh, and some reasons to go for a CVT (in any manufacturer):
1. Fuel efficient
2. Great power from the engine straight to wheels without a gearbox dictating gears (1st gear MUST come before 2nd, which MUST come before 3rd, etc...)
3. Great track record (Nissan has one of the lowest warranty-cost indexes with regards to drivetrain of any major automobile manufacturer)
4. And finally, although some people may not believe it, great towing funtionality in a 4 cylinder (when using the paddle shifters or "manual" shift mode to put the transmission into a synthesized 1st gear).
~ Hope this helps!
One thing nobody seems to have mentioned is that the CVT is mechanically simplier than these new 5 and 6 speed 'traditional' autos and therefore shouldn't cost 4 grand to get them fixed in the unlikely event they do
In our case it actually wasn't. We could open the hatch of our 2002 CR-V (Swinging Tailgate) in our garage, but couldn't open the liftgate of our 2000 Odyssey minivan; the van's hatch would hit the bottom portion of the raised garage door.
Different strokes for different folks.
Click Here to see the five-way comparison of the Forester, Vue, CR-V, Rogue, and RAV4 4-cylinder models.
Of course there have
forums like this are bad places to be making any assumptions about any car's problems or reliabilities simply because folks that have a problem with anything are going to all over these forums looking for help or maybe just to vent. Nissan has produced and sold hundreds of thousands of CVTs and at least tens of thousands of Muranos so equipped for years now. Of course there will be a few folks out there that have had problems with it and I could certainly find a lot of those folks complaining quite loudly (and often) on a Murano forum entitled 'transmission issues'.
A better source of info. on the 'success' of the CVT might be consumer statistical compilations (CR for example) and/or any records of CVT related recalls and/or TSBs. Or if Nissan were abandoning the CVT (because of warranty costs). On this basis (and others) I think you'll find that the Nissan CVT has been a remarkable success, been quite trouble free, and also something that Nissan is expanding to more and more of their vehicles including now the Rogue which essentially uses the Altima's engine/tranny - a car they sell a mere 300,000 of during the year.
BTW, I think I said that the CVT shouldbe cheaper to repair (because of its mechanical simplicity). If it isn't - I wonder if that is really a function of the 3rd party independents not being 'able' (or trained) to do it yet or that these newer 5 -6 speed + conventional trannies are dictating that the era of the $1500.00 tranny rebuild is over. Many dealers will generally farm out their tranny work to independents - if Nissan dealers are having to do it themselves (or there are few qualified to do it) it would not surprise me that it could get quite expensive.
Obviously the 'jury' must still be consideredto be out on the CVT, after all it has really only been around since 2003 in the Murano- but any implications that the tranny has been anything but a success I think is incorrect.
I don't feel like doing the search, but for anybody interested, nissan has said several times that their xtronic CVT is MORE RELIABLE than the auto trannies they used to use. even though some people have had problems with their cvt, not as many have had problems as had problems with nissans auto transmissions.
and given that they now use the CVT in most of their vehicles - you would expect them to say something different?
I think though that - within this thread - the 'traditional' electronic 5 speed in the RAV4 V6 vs. the CVT in the Rogue, I think you'll find more complainers on the Toyota websites despite that V6 being about the best engine on the planet.
There are so many folks on the road today that have no experience/training with MTs. Since the CVT and MT both offer similar fuel efficiencies, it will be interesting to see if it's the CVT or the MT that picks up in popularity as gas surges to $5.
Does anyone have experience towing with the Rogue?
For the CRV, mainly the performance is the key issue.
I think Honda should put the new 2008 Accord top 4-Cyl engine in it.
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy, also adding a lockable 4wd button and a faster wheel slippage reaction time for the all wheel drive to engage the rear wheels
That engine has 190 horses with 162 pound ft. of torque
I think the CR-V will be more competitive with that engine will increase the CRV performance & fuel economy
Increased performance wouldn't be noticed much, especially at normal operating RPMs (under 4,000). Torque is pretty much unchanged, and the peak horsepower in the 190hp version doesn't come until around 7,000 RPM.
Increased fuel economy is unlikely as well; it went unchanged from the 166hp to the 190hp Accord.
If anything I do think the 2010 CR-V will offer something like th 177hp version that is in the LX Accord, with its lower redline and power peaks.
Pluses: very good mileage; very good performance for a 4 cylinder loaded down (remember, this is NOT a Honda Accord V6 with 6Manual!), CVT worked wonderfully - with not a hitch and smooth acceleration, fair comfort for 4 adults (of course, previously we were spoiled with a Grand Caravan Sport, so not fair to compare), XM radio and bluetooth were great.
Minuses: a little cramped, and difficult to pack (what do you expect for the size), bottomed out a couple of times (we were probably maxed out on the GVWR), but no damage other than a scraped bottom of trailer hitch, wished the back seat would recline, wished for extra power plug in the back,
rogue now has over 22,000 miles since 12/07, and no problems. took it to oil change after trip and all they recommneded was replacing the air filter (which looked fine to me, so i told them i'd replace it later)
As far as the air filter goes, if you can get to it easily, replace it yourself and save the big bucks. My dealer charges $30 for it to be put in, so I bought a $9 one made by STP and put it in my Honda myself. A penny saved is a penny earned, but 2,000 pennies is lunch for two!
As far as the lockable AWD - well yes it is and no it isn't - simply because it turns itself off (reverting back to FWD only) at speed. I could see it being valuable in the snow country though along with the switchable Stability Control.
1) Rogue rides much better, not as "busy" as the RAV. Handles tighter. Wind noise seems much less at 65-70 MPH in Rogue. Road noise also. Rogue much better in crosswinds.
2) RAV accelerates faster, both from standing start and highway pass, but Rogue isn't at all lazy.
3) MPG on Rogue is better. 33 avg on first three tanks in Rogue vs 27 in 30k miles in RAV.
4) Rogue seats more comfortable, more supportive on sides and lumbar areas
5) RAV interior is more practical: less cloth, more plastic, especialy on doors; many more storage cubbies; more cupholders; Huge storage well in rear where 3rd seat would go. Rogue hasa smaller one back there with its touted dividers, which don't seem all that useful, especially if you use a load blanket.
6) AT gearbox in RAV is constantly hunting, thus annoying. Not so in Rogue. Plus the paddles up the fun factor nicely. The Rogue actually has seven forward speeds so, once it's broken in, one should be able to work the power band better in the Rogue. The Rogue gearbox feels tighter, less slushy. But it would be nice if the Paddles were in a fixed location when steering large lock. However, one can still gear up/down with the console lever. One neat trick on the CVT is that you can remain in full Auto mode and trigger the manual briefly by just pulling a paddle, after a bit it will return to "D" (auto) by itself. No need to change modes. Found that to be very handy at times.
7) Rear visibility has glitches in both, although at different spots. Side visibility from Rogue is better. The non-removeable rear headrests are a serious flaw in the Rogue, IMO. Doesn't bother us since we have rear seats down 99% of the time. But when they're up rear visibility is seriously compromised. If that wasn't the case the rear visibility could be a deal-breaker for us.
8) The way the CVT holds speed downhill is useful. HAve yet to try it in crawl mode to compare with RAV's hill brake.
9) Service people seem more friendly with Nissan around these parts.
10) Ground clearance slightly better in Rogue.
11) Audio system in Rogue sounds better.
12) Can tow a bit more with RAV.
13) Mirror adjustment control location is more user friendly on Rogue, but the VSC and AWD controls are better located on the RAV.
14) The OEM tires on Rogue (Conti 4x4 Contact) are not as good as RAV (loud, only 6/32 tread on the Rogue's Contis at 19 miles!).
15) The conventional (vertical) hatch on the Rogue is more convenient. Sounds like that's going to change next model year.
16) RAV comes stock with full-size spare. Rogue has temp. However, you can change that by removing the aft storage locker and replacing the donut. But that does give up that small partitioned storage bin mentioned above.
17) Am not sure yet if the Intelligent Key is a boon or not. However, the price to replace one seems less expensive than the RAV or even a Honda FIT.
18) No locking fuel door. However, the RAV's flimsy door won't stop anyone.
Both are good, small utilitarian rides, but we feel the Rogue offers better value for the price which around here is substantially less than RAV.
We realize much of the above is subjective, but that's our $0.02. HTH.
Comparing the CVT in the Freestyle vs Rogue would be misleading, IMO. We found that the Ford has little downhill breaking, sluggish start off the line, no decent manual mode, and much noiser. Our 08 Rogue is much more friendly, quieter (yes it's a smaller engine), more flexible, much more fun (with the paddles and seven speeds).
How is headroom in the Rogue? with/without sunroof?
No problem here, but we're only 5'10". I compared both with and w/o sunroofs during test drives and didn't notice any blatant difference.
Yeah, if you consider an additional 2,000 pounds a "bit" :P
The Rogues 1,500 pound tow rating rules out all but the tiniest campers...even my smallish pop-up camper is nearly 1,400 pounds empty.
I was wondering about your comment on the rear door and the possible change to a side hinge. Is there more information on possible changes for 2009??
As for FE penalty, I got 28 mpg last weekend on a 400+ mile trip.
Thanks
Shopped the RAV and was not impressed with the 4 cylinder at all and also that the V6 was going to cost me about 5 grand more - optioned out as my Rogue is. The Rogue is surprisingly quick even if it doesn't quite keep up with the RAV V6 although the CVT has required some adjustment on my part. However, for this type of vehicle, I thought the Rogue more fun to drive than the RAV with more flexibility in the interior (passenger seat folds and all seats flat for a really long/flat cargo area) and overall a nicer interior (mine is perforated leather). Besides the CRV, also considered the CX7 which was going to be even less expensive than the Rogue but the turbo 4 was rough and I was scared away by CR reliability reports. Power, fit and finish, and fun to drive quotient quite good though.
It will be interesting to see how well the RAV V6 continues to sell, many folks will buy a 4 banger just because they think it must be much more economical, something not necessarily the case when you talking about the Toyota 2GR.